legal news


Register | Forgot Password

DELLOCA v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY

DELLOCA v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY
04:09:2008



DELLOCA v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY



Filed 2/22/08



CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE



CONRAD J. DELLOCA et al.,



Plaintiffs and Appellants,



v.



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,



Defendant and Appellant.



A111267 & A112153



(Marin County



Super. Ct. No. CV 012912)



ORDER MODIFYING OPINION



AND DENYING REHEARING



[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]



THE COURT:



It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 29, 2008, be modified as follows:



1. The last sentence on page 2, which continues onto page 3, should be modified to delete the phrase at the end of the sentence that reads which, presumably, has been distributed, so that the sentence will now read:



In the end, trust receivables were auctioned off for approximately $4.4 million, which, after expenses were deducted, left $1.5 million.



2. The first sentence after the heading The Plaintiffs and Their Claims Against the DFS Defendants on page 3 is modified to add a reference to Trust I, so that the sentence will now read:



Plaintiff Conrad J. DellOca, trustee of the DellOca Family Trust, had purchased notes from Trusts I and IV.



3. The last sentence on page 9, which continues onto page 10, is modified to read:



Mr. Randlett stated that if damages were calculated using June 23, 1998, as the operative date, the plaintiffs damages were between $35 and $36 million, representing $30,730,500 that had been invested after June 23, 1998, plus 25 cents on the dollar on existing investments (as of June 23, 1998) of $20 million.



4. The second to the last sentence on page 19 is modified to read:



It is not fatal that the court did not characterize its ruling as a finding of lack of causation of the damages sought by plaintiffs.



There is no change in the judgment.



Plaintiffs petition for rehearing is denied.



Dated: ____________________________,



Marchiano, P. J.



Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.



Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.



San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com





Description A modification decision.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale